Commonwealth v. Charles P. Dyer
Docket # SJC-07460
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Facts: Janice lived with the defendant in Maine and had a four year old daughter with him. She moved away to the Fall River area where her mother, Carol, lived. The defendant went looking for her, and told her mom and her brothers, Roy and George, that he had damaging tapes of her engaging in sexual acts. They all met at Carol’s house, the defendant showed them a couple of tapes of Janice, including one which he admitted that he had two guys raped Janice and taped it. It was a heated and emotional confrontation. The defendant eventually pulled out a gun, shot Roy, then shot George in the hand and shoulder, then pointed the gun at Carol and then at Janice but it did not fire both times. George survived the gunshot wounds, but Roy died. The defendant had set up the video recording of Janice because he thought she was an unfit parent. When Janice discovered it, she left Maine with the child.
The defendant testified to a different version of the story. After showing the videotapes at the house, the brothers blocked the exit and cornered him. They demanded money and told him he would never get visitation rights. Roy had the gun and hit the defendant with it, then a struggle ensued with both George and Roy grabbing and beating the defendant. In the struggle the gun went off and Roy fell to the ground. Then George hit the defendant with a chair. The defendant then shot twice to scare him off, but George then tried to push him down the stairs and the defendant shot George. He was then attacked by Carol and Janice, he put the gun down and left after Carol threatened to kill him.
Issue #1: Was the defendant’s right to a public trial denied when potential jurors were questioned by the judge in her lobby with the public excluded?
No. The defendant waived his right by consenting to the proceedings. The defendant didn’t bring up any factors that would suggest that a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice occurred.
Issue #2: Were the defendant’s due process rights violated when he was not present when the judge addressed a couple issues of potential juror bias with the jurors?
No. A defendant has a right to be present if a judge conducts an inquiry into the potential serious juror misconduct or a suggestion of juror bias. But, if the defendant makes no request to be present, the judge does not exclude him, and his counsel never objects to his absence, the issue is waved and will not be addressed on appeal.
Issue #3: Was the defendant improperly excluded from discussion between the judge and counsel regarding questions from the jury?
No. Defense counsel was consulted by the judge and agreed to the answers the judge would give
Issue #4: Should the judge have granted an evidentiary on potential bias by two jurors?
No. The boyfriend of one juror worked at the correctional facility the defendant was being held, and another juror was a cook at another correctional facility. The trial judge already addressed bias with the cook earlier in the trial. As for the guard, the defendant did not fulfill the burden of showing pretrial bias, and Juror D said that she would not have any trouble being fair and impartial.
Issue #5: Was the admission of evidence that the Drew family was afraid of the defendant erroneously admitted?
No. Evidence that the Drew family was afraid of the defendant was necessary to rebut the defendant’s version of the story, which said that he acted in self-defense against the aggressive brothers who threatened the defendant and tried to extort money from him. There was no error because the defendant tried to portray the family as a whole as the aggressor.
Issue #6: Was the admission of Janice’s statement that she did not tell anyone about the rapes because she was afraid the defendant would beat her, erroneously included?
No. Normally evidence showing previous misbehavior cannot be admitted, unless such evidence is relevant for some other purpose. In this case, Janice’s statements were used to rehabilitate he credibility after the defendant theorized that Janice threw out the rape accusations only when her brothers were siding with the defendant instead of her. Since this evidence was used towards Janice’s credibility, which was attacked by the defendant, it is admissible.
Issue #7: Did the three claims of error in the jury instructions create a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice?
No. 1) The judge erroneously referenced all three prongs of malice instead of just focusing on intent; but this didn’t affect the verdict cause the jury is required to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant intended to kill the victim. 2) The judge also erroneously described the Commonwealth’s burden when it comes to proving voluntary manslaughter, but, the judge followed that with a correct description of the type of provocation sufficient and not sufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter. Also, the defendant was not entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on provocation; voluntary manslaughter involved an intentional killing, and according to the defendant, Roy’s death came about accidentally when the gun went off. 3) The judge incorrectly stated the Commonwealth’s burden with respect to self-defense, but reading the instruction as a whole, there is no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. 4) The defendant also argues that the judge should have instructed on the use of nondeadly force in self-defense, since he only used his hands in the struggle with Roy. The extent of force the defendant used is irrelevant to whether or not it was an accident; the defendant is raising a defense of accident and is not entitled to an instruction on the nondeadly use of force.
Issue #8: Did the ineffectiveness of the defendant’s counsel enough to warrant a new trial?
No. 1) The defendant provided an affidavit by a professor of criminalistics who said that there should have been testing of the gunshot and powder discharge, but, there is not evidence to indicate that these analysis could have been done because the appointed attorney did not begin working on the case until 18 months after the shooting, and even if the investigation could have been made, it’s only a theory that it would have proved useful for the defendant. 2) The defendant also claims that his counsel failed to bring up the custody dispute between Janice and his sister, and that it was relevant because it brought up Janice’s potential bias. But, the transcripts are full of evidence of Janice’s bias and the ill will between her and the defendant. 3) The defendant argues that his counsel should have objected to the ID cards that were found in his car and were brought into evidence because they suggested criminal activity. Usually you are not allow to bring up anything suggestive of bad character (which includes aliases, fake ID’s and nicknames), but the prosecutor can refer to these things when there is a reason to do so. The prosecution’s questions were relevant in this case because they referred to the defendant’s premeditation about committing the crime and intent to flee. The defense counsel also later clarified that these cards had been owned and used by the defendant way before these events occurred, thus the counsel was not ineffective.
Conclusion. The SJC affirms the decision. The defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree on a theory of deliberate premeditation, and also armed assault with intent to kill.
Prepared by KP
